Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:104117 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6260 of 2023 Revisionist :- Hausila Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Alok Kumar,Ram Khelawan Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Muktesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2 even in revised call. 2. Heard Shri Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Santosh Nigam, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. 3. The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist to set aside the impugned order dated 12.10.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Jaunpur in Case No.2429 of 2022 (Usha Devi and 2 others vs. Hausila Prasad), under Section 128 Cr.P.C., P.S. Mungrabadshahpur, District Jaunpur whereby court concerned directed the D.M. concerned to attach the property of the revisionist. 4. Learned counsel for revisionist submits, opposite party no.2 is the wife of revisionist. He further submits, court concerned allowed the application moved by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and when revisionist failed to give maintenance allowance to her then an order of attachment of his property was passed under Section 128 Cr.P.C. on 12.10.2023. 5. He further submits that order dated 12.10.2023 is totally illegal and without jurisdiction. 6. He further submits that as revisionist was labour and therefore, he could not pay the maintenance allowance to opposite party no.2 as directed by the trial court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He further submits, while passing the impugned order dated 12.10.2023 court concerned failed to consider this fact and thus committed illegality. 7. He further submits that therefore impugned order dated 12.10.2023 is liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 12.10.2023. 9. He further submits that as revisionist failed to pay maintenance allowance to opposite party no.2 as directed by the trial court under Section 125 Cr.P.C., therefore, opposite party no.2 had to move an application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. and thereafter order of attachment of the property of the revisionist was passed by the court concerned vide order dated 12.10.2023. 10. He further submits that even at the time of passing of the impugned order no one appeared on behalf of the revisionist inspite of notice and therefore, this fact shows that revisionist was not willing to pay maintenance allowance awarded to the opposite party no.2. He next submits, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 12.10.2023 and instant revision filed by the revisionist is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. From the record, it reflects that revisionist is the husband of the opposite party no.2 and he by way of the instant revision challenged the impugned order dated 12.10.2023 by which court concerned directed to attach his property, as he failed to comply the order passed against him by the court concerned under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the maintenance application moved by opposite party no.2 i.e. his wife. 13. Record further suggests that total Rs.13,26,000/- were due upon the revisionist and therefore, after considering the entire facts of the case, court concerned passed the order of attachment on 12.10.2023. In view of this Court, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 12.10.2023, as revisionist failed to pay the maintenance allowance awarded to opposite party no.2 i.e. his wife. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of case discussed above, in my view, the instant revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 3.7.2025/Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad